Differences btw evaluation vs. moral judgement?

[AndrewSternberg]

I am trying to understand the difference between Evaluation and Moral Judgement and how to apply them "metaphysical" facts vs. "man-made" facts.

My understanding of evaluation is that it applys to both metaphysical and man-made facts and that it serves to identify the value of the relevent fact in relation to one's life, identifying whether it furthers or threatens it.

My understanding of Moral Judgement is that it applys to the cause of man-made facts, i.e., one's choice to focus on reality with integration as ones goal (rationality), or to evade reality with ignorance and contradiction as ones cosequence (irrationality). The former deserves moral praise for being a process of life (a process that leads to man-made facts that serve man's life), and the latter deserves moral condemnation for being a process of death (a process that leads to man-made facts that threaten man's life).

Is this explanation correct? Even if it is correct, if someone sees a more precise way of phrasing it, don't hold back.

[AndrewSternberg]

Follow-up question. I tried to answer these questions on my own by reading what Peikoff had to say about the issue in his essay, Fact and Value

In it he states:

correspondence to reality (and its causes and effects) deserves and must be given a positive moral evaluation.

Wouldn't moral evaluation only apply to the cause and not the effect? Isn't it more precise to say that since the "effects" manifest themselves as man-made facts (either as mental or physical existents), and that facts deserve evaluation, but not moral evaluation?

Somewhat related question: Judgement means determining whether an idea is true or false, right?

[Betsy]

I am trying to understand the difference between Evaluation and Moral Judgement and how to apply them "metaphysical" facts vs. "man-made" facts.

Actually, the nature and purpose of evaluation and moral judgement are exactly the same because moral judgement is a subclass of evaluation. It is the evaluation of men and man-made things.

The purpose of moral judgement is to determine whether dealing with someone or something man-made is in your self-interest. Should you be friends with Joe, marry Sally, go to work with the ABC Company, lend money to Bill, trust Sam, hire Bob, buy from Tom, invest in the XYZ company, consult Dr. Smith, etc.?

Ayn Rand makes the parallel between the evaluation of things and moral judgement explicit in Galt's speech:

"Justice is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification—that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly, that just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a rotter above a hero ..."

[AndrewSternberg]

So in other words, there would be no significant cognitive payoff in making any distinction between the two, even though a distinction can be made.

Thanks Betsy! I love being able to get a direct answer in such a timely manner. This forum is great!